This was the classic tome Imperialism by J.A. Hobson, well known to all serious students of British politics but apparently new to many Fleet Street scribblers.

Hobson was among the most prominent critics of the British Empire’s war in South Africa – the Boer War – in which among other outrages the British Empire pioneered the use of concentration camps to intern Boer civilians.

In the build-up to the war prominent Jewish financiers plotted with the gentile and Rothschild ally Cecil Rhodes to stage a “false flag” incident known to history as the Jameson Raid. This conspiracy failed, but it was not long before some of the same characters had successfully provoked a brutal war. There were almost 50,000 civilian casualties, including more than 26,000 Boer civilian women and children killed in British concentration camps.

Alfred Beit, one of the Jewish tycoons who plotted the Jameson Raid

Before, during and after the conflict, several leading opponents of the war – ranging from Marxists to Labour Party founders to Liberals – explicitly denounced what they saw as the Jewish influence in provoking and sustaining the conflict.

British Marxist (and first-class cricketer) Henry Hyndman attacked Jewish newspaper owners as “poisoners of the wells of public information”; he went on to condemn “this shameful attempt of a sordid capitalism to drag us into a policy of conquest in tropical regions which can benefit no living Englishman in the long run, though it may swell the overgrown fortunes of the meanest creatures on the earth”.

After the failure of the Jameson Raid, Liberal MP and journalist Henry Labouchère wrote of the plotters arrested by Boer leaders: “Many of the prisoners bear English names but are nonetheless mostly of foreign Hebrew origin, the kind of people frequently having a penchant to Anglicise their names”.

British Marxist and anti-war activist H.M. Hyndman

Socialist journalist Harry Quelch (later a friend of Lenin) wrote: “The Jew financier is the personfication of that gold international which today dominates the government and the jingo press of all countries.” Quelch later added: “We have denounced this as a Jew-Capitalist war, and seeing the prominent part Jew-capitalists have taken in the Johannesburg agitation, and seeing their intimate relations with Cabinet ministers here at home and the vituperative fury of their organs in the press, we consider the terms fully justified.”

In September 1899 the radical editor of Reynolds’s Newsapaper, W.M. Thompson, wrote: “The Transvaal policy of the present government is undoubtedly controlled by Jews so that England too is passing under the dominion of the foreigners from the East.”

Labour Party founder Keir Hardie concluded in 1900: “Modern imperialism is really run by half a dozen financial houses, many of them Jewish, to whom politics is a counter in the game of buying and selling securities.”

Even David Lloyd George (who as Prime Minister seventeen years later was to preside over the first official British backing for a Zionist homeland in Palestine) denounced the Tory government’s Boer War policies, sarcastically noting that “all our righteousness, all our hatred of wrongs was reserved for a community of Jews six thousand miles away in Johannesburg who ran away when the fighting came for their own cause.”

Labour Party founder Keir Hardie was among the many pioneer socialists who took an anti-Jewish line

One of the most explicitly “anti-semitic” interventions by an opponent of the war was a speech by trade unionist and MP John Burns in February 1900. Burns told the House of Commons: “Wherever we examine, there is the financial Jew, operating, directing, inspiring the agonies that have led to this war. …The trail of the financial serpent is over this war from beginning to end.”

Partly inspired by Burns, the Trade Union Congress passed a resolution at its conference in September 1900 opposing the Boer War as having been waged “to secure the gold fields of South Africa for cosmopolitan Jews most of whom had no patriotism and no country”.

So the author at the centre of the latest Corbyn controversy – J.A. Hobson – was by no means out of line with the prevailing anti-Jewish sentiments of Boer War opponents. He had first been sent to South Africa to report on the brewing conflict by the liberal Manchester Guardian in 1899, and a year later his Guardian journalism was collected into a book. Writing to Guardian proprietor and editor C.P. Scott, Hobson described how he had begun to perceive the Jewish role in South African events: “Many of these men have taken English names, and the extent of the Jew power is thus concealed. I am not exaggerating one whit. I think I can prove it.”

J.A. Hobson

Hobson continued in his letter to Scott (whose family trust still owns today’s Guardian newspaper): “They fastened on the Rand …as they are prepared to fasten upon any other spot on the globe in order to exploit it for the attainment of huge profits and quick return. This small confederacy of international financiers …chiefly foreign Jews, are the economic rulers of South Africa.”

Unlike those who have so keenly jumped on the bandwagon to atack Corbyn for publishing a Foreword praising the “anti-semite” Hobson, H&D actually knows a bit about British imperial history, including the Boer War. The question should not be whether Corbyn, Hobson and others are anti-Jewish. The question should be: are they telling the truth?

It has been widely assumed that this party was created as a vehicle for Nigel Farage’s return to frontline politics, following Mr Farage’s resignation from UKIP and on the assumption that he might need a party of his own to contest European Parliamentary elections in the event of Brexit being postponed or cancelled.

In common with UKIP and its various splinter groups, Farage has always insisted that former BNP activists and other ‘racists’ would always be excluded from his movement.

Assisting this ‘anti-racist’ agenda, it was helpful that Ms Blaiklock was herself married to a black Jamaican, and had previously been married to a Nepalese Sherpa!

Mark Collett speaking at the 2017 John Tyndall Memorial Meeting in Preston

What will be the next fake outrage? Have we really reached the stage where it is unacceptable for anyone in mainstream politics to address racial issues? If so then mainstream politicians are in for a few surprises.

On October 6th H&D hosted our latest John Tyndall Memorial Meeting in Preston. As with all previous such events, this was very widely advertised in advance and reported afterwards both on this website and in the current edition of H&D. All of the speeches were professionally filmed and are publicly available on YouTube.

The John Tyndall Memorial Meeting in Preston, October 2017

Nevertheless a television production company sent two young female journalists ‘undercover’ into the meeting, where they secretly filmed speeches that would in any case be broadcast in full on our YouTube channel. Unfortunately these ‘undercover journalists’ – who used the names Mary McShane and Mary Mead – also claim to have recorded private conversations with members of the audience at the bar and in cars travelling from the event.

H&D greatly regrets this invasion of privacy. While our own editor and assistant editor have not said anything in private that we would not say in public, we of course have no idea what members of the audience might say in their own private conversations, especially when these are recorded, edited and taken out of context by journalists.

‘Undercover reporter’ using the name Mary McShane at the October 2017 JTMM in Preston

We would emphasise the following points in reply to allegations contained in a letter sent to our assistant editor by the production company (allegations which may or may not be featured in the programme):

– Heritage & Destiny is a non-partisan journal reflecting a wide spectrum of nationalist ideas. Particular articles in the magazine should not be taken as reflecting an editorial line or shared ideology, still less should it be assumed that H&D promotes any particular position or agenda held by authors of such articles.

– Events hosted by H&D similarly reflect a broad range of ideas – as should be obvious from the fact that such speakers often disagree with each other on particular issues and represent diverse parties and groups.

– The London Forum and allied forums in various parts of the UK again feature a diverse range of speakers – the clue is in the name “forum”.

– Some of the individuals featured in the forthcoming ITV programme have no connection whatever with H&D. For example, while we fully accept Anne Marie Waters right to her own opinions on Islam, and we deprecate attempts to silence her, there have been many articles critical of Ms Waters and her associates published both in the magazine and on this website. Within the broad spectrum of nationalist ideas represented by H&D, we have sometimes printed articles which conform with Ms Waters’ anti-Islam agenda, but most articles on this theme have been critical of her approach. In particular our assistant editor’s ‘Movement News’ column has been consistently critical of the EDL, Liberty GB and the rest of the ‘Islam-obsessed’ wing of nationalism.

Dr Jim Lewthwaite speaking at the 2017 JTMM

– It would be seriously defamatory to accuse our assistant editor of expressing sympathy with any form of terrorism during his speech at the October 6th meeting. What he did say (and repeated in the current edition of the magazine) was that the Terrorism Act makes a mockery of the English language in its designation of a wide range of purely political activities as ‘terrorist’. These concerns about the wide-ranging remit and potential injustice of the Terrorism Act are widely shared across the political spectrum. Serious criminal charges have emerged against some individuals since the October 6th meeting. None of those individuals was present at the meeting, and for obvious legal reasons we cannot comment further at this time.

– Our assistant editor did indeed state at the October 6th meeting that Ernst Zündel, Ursula Haverbeck and others prosecuted under Germany’s notorious laws suppressing free historical research will be seen as “heroes of the Europe of the future”. Their alleged crimes are not in any way illegal in this country. H&D does not promote any particular interpretation of Second World War history, and indeed some articles in H&D have suggested that nationalists should avoid association with historical revisionism (while others have argued that defence of academic and political freedom is central to our cause).

– As regards the Brexit referendum, there can be little doubt that concerns over immigration were the main motivation for many (arguably most) pro-Brexit voters. It should be noted however that a significant minority of British nationalists took a pro-Remain stance in last year’s referendum, and this debate was featured in the magazine.

– In short, to draw “links” between diverse individuals and groups attending a meeting/forum (and in some cases between individuals who have never met or had anything to do with each other) is at best absurd and at worst defamatory.

Today’s Mail on Sunday makes a great fuss about the recent forum at a London hotel, where a range of speakers including American Prof. Kevin MacDonald addressed cultural and historical topics.

The Mail gets into a frenzy about this event, describing it as a “Nazi invasion of London.”

But what did the paper’s own proprietor Lord Rothermere think of the real National Socialists and their leader Adolf Hitler, whose 126th birthday falls tomorrow?

As early as September 1930, more than two years before Hitler came to power, Rothermere wrote an article in the Mail praising the National Socialist leader. Under the headline ‘A Nation Reborn’, the press baron wrote:
“What are the sources of strength of a party which at the general election two years ago could win only 12 seats, but now, with 107, has become the second strongest in the Reichstag, and whose national poll has increased in the same time from 809,000 to 6,400,000? Striking as these figures are, they stand for something far greater than political success. They represent the rebirth of Germany as a nation.”

Lord Rothermere’s article praising Sir Oswald Mosley’s BUF

When Sir Oswald Mosley created the British Union of Fascists in 1932, Rothermere became one of his earliest and strongest supporters. Though the Mail today referred to Mosley’s “hateful Blackshirt insignia”, at the time the paper’s line was very different. Rothermere wrote an article for his paper in 1934 under the headline ‘Hurrah for the Blackshirts!’

Rothermere (great-grandfather of the present Lord who is still chairman of the newspaper) visited Hitler in January 1937. The führer‘s press chief Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary afterwards:
“Rothermere pays me great compliments. Enquires in detail about German press policy. Strongly anti-Jewish.”

The decline of the BNP has left the well-financed anti-fascist industry searching for a new target to justify their existence and stimulate their donors. While UKIP (thanks to the undeniable eccentricity of several leading activists and candidates) has been the main victim, Channel 4 News this week discovered a new scandal of supposed covert “racism” – the tiny and imperfectly formed National Liberal Party.

In one sense the media smearmongers are correct: the NLP is a remnant of the National Front splits of the 1980s. In 1983 a young radical faction (which included future BNP chairman Nick Griffin) ousted the NF’s de facto leader Martin Webster, only to suffer their own split in 1986. Half of the Front (including Griffin) became the “political soldiers”, following various continental ideologies including the “long live death” cult of Romania’s Corneliu Codreanu. The other half took a more pragmatic, populist line and became known as the Flag Group, named after the party newspaper they created after losing control of National Front News to their rivals.

The “political soldiers” hit the headlines for seeking funds from the Libyan dictator Col. Gadaffi – Griffin and his then allies Derek Holland and Patrick Harrington even travelled to Libya in pursuit of cash but returned only with copies of Gadaffi’s tract The Green Book, which was sold for years to come at NF meetings.

Then in 1988 the “political soldiers” themselves split: Griffin, Holland and their Italian mentor Roberto Fiore went on to form the International Third Position, increasingly influenced by traditionalist Catholic theology; while Harrington formed Third Way with a handful of allies including Graham Williamson from Blackpool, and David Kerr from Ulster.

Eventually Third Way spawned the National Liberal Party, but Harrington later drifted back to the BNP, rejoining his old ally/enemy Nick Griffin. The NLP became ever more multiracialist, and Williamson built especially close alliances with Tamils and Sikhs. In some ways this was consistent with 1980s NF “third position” ideology, which focused on building coalitions with oppressed Third World minorities against our common enemies.

Fast forward a couple of decades, and we reach the latest “exposé” by Channel 4 News. The National Liberals are probably right to conclude that this was inspired by their powerful enemies in India, since the NLP isn’t significant enough to have attracted the attention of the more usual financiers of “anti-fascism”.

But Channel 4 have missed the real scandal: the Nat Libs’ Griffin-style “donate now” button, which features images of their supposed political heroes: Lord Rosebery, Joseph Chamberlain and Leslie Hore-Belisha.

It’s weird enough to base your politics on an imagined early/mid 20th century tradition, throwing Rosebery, Chamberlain and Hore-Belisha together as though they form an ideological continuum.

But if you are going to idolise early/mid 20th century politicians (which isn’t entirely unknown in nationalist circles) it’s a good idea to spell their names correctly!!!

The Nat Libs manage to misspell two of the three: referring to “Roseberry”, Chamberlain and “Hoare-Belisha”.

As we’ve seen recently, it’s easy to make errors on websites, but even so….

And ironically the NLP’s founders probably imagined they were being smart by proclaiming admiration for Rosebery and Hore-Belisha, since they both had Jewish connections. Rosebery married a Rothschild heiress, while Hore-Belisha was born a Jew (Isaac Leslie Belisha). Harrington and Williamson presumably hoped this kosher piety by proxy would disarm media attacks: it didn’t work too well, did it?

Nelson Mandela (centre) with his then wife and fellow terrorist Winnie (left) and Joe Slovo, head of the South African Communist Party.

Today in Johannesburg political and religious leaders from around the world are gathering to pay their final respects to Nelson Mandela, a man who was elevated to virtual sainthood during the last 25 years. Some of those leaders will be hypocrites such as the British Prime Minister David Cameron, who as a young Tory activist was perfectly happy to take a free holiday to South Africa paid for by a propaganda outfit of Mandela’s enemies in the old South African government. Others will be naive but sincere liberals, who believe the “anti-apartheid” movement to have been the great moral cause of their lifetime.

In fact there are only two political/historical subjects that have been taken out of normal debate and given a quasi-religious status, so that it is regarded as grossly offensive or even criminal to express a different view: the Holocaust and Nelson Mandela.

This is all the more peculiar when one realises that Mandela was a Marxist terrorist, allied to the IRA. In fact the movement he led – the African National Congress – was the most communistic of all African ‘liberation’ movements, and Mandela was personally in charge of its shift towards a more pro-Moscow and violent approach.

As has recently been documented by the British historian Dr Calder Walton in his book Empire of Secrets, many African leaders linked themselves with White Marxists as well as liberals as part of their advance to power, while in fact having no real ideology other than personal advancement. Once they had become rulers of their ‘independent’ post-imperial states, they almost always decided that a secret relationship with British intelligence would be more profitable than fellow travelling with Moscow.

A slightly earlier book – External Mission: The ANC in Exile, by Prof. Stephen Ellis, published in 2011 – proved that Mandela and the ANC were an exception, developing especially close ties to Moscow. During his trial in 1963 – after which he was jailed for life, convicted of leading a terrorist conspiracy – Mandela denied being a Communist Party member.

Yet Prof. Ellis established that he was not only a member, but a leading activist on the central committee of the South African Communist Party, and that even before he became leader of the ANC he was in charge of the pro-Communist faction within the movement, seeking arms and finance from both Moscow and Beijing. (Eventually the ANC became pro-Soviet, though with a small pro-China faction.)

The ANC’s terrorist wing which Mandela commanded – known as Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation) – began a campaign of bombings in December 1961. Mandela and nine of his closest comrades were arrested after a successful operation by South African anti-terrorist police, who arrested them in July 1963 at a farm owned by the Jewish communist Arthur Goldreich. In 1948 Goldreich had served in the elite Palmach wing of the Zionist terrorist group Haganah.

The property and other ANC assets had been purchased via Goldreich and a fellow Jewish communist, lawyer Harold Wolpe.

Even with Mandela in prison, his movement continued its terror campaign and built close ties with two of the 20th century’s most infamous organisations: the East German secret police, the Stasi, who trained ANC members in torture and other methods to be used against opponents in their own ranks; and the IRA, whose experts tutored Mandela’s men in the fine arts of bomb making, so that they could be more efficient in killing South African women and children in a series of terrorist outrages.

Nelson Mandela with fellow terrorists Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams of the IRA.

One IRA style bombing among many was on Church Street in the centre of Pretoria in 1983, killing 19 and injuring 217. Many more bombs targetted Wimpy bars and supermarkets, such as a shop in Amanzimtoti, Natal, in 1985 killing five civilians and injuring 40.

By this time Western leaders had ceased caring about White civilians in South Africa. With the Soviet bloc collapsing at the end of the 1980s, London and Washington helped broker a deal between the South African business elite and the ANC, by which Mandela was released from prison and installed in “democratic” power.

Many years earlier Britain’s secret intelligence service MI6 had intervened to prevent Mandela being killed during a planned prison escape. British agent Sir Robert Birley, former headmaster of Eton, foiled the plot and became an important MI6 link to Mandela and the ANC leadership, whose Marxist ideals did not prevent such opportunistic alliances.

For well over a week the English media have been obsessed by allegations of racist comments by England and Chelsea captain John Terry, supposedly directed at Queens Park Rangers defender Anton Ferdinand during the televised QPR v Chelsea game on 23rd October.

TV pictures clearly show Terry speaking the words “f**king black c**t” in Ferdinand’s direction. It is sad but unsurprising in 2011 that the obscenities are uncontroversial: it’s only the word “black” that has got Terry into trouble, and had the words “f**king c**t” been directed at (for example) Ferdinand’s white team mate Shaun Derry, there would have been no complaints.

Terry’s immediate reaction was to claim that the film actually caught the end – not of a racist comment, but a denial of a racist comment! He maintained that he thought Ferdinand had complained of racial comments that he hadn’t made, so what the camera showed (in Terry’s submission) was his response: “I never called you a f**king black c**t”!

Far more important than the credibility of Terry’s instant excuse is that none of the manufactured outrage over the affair has set it in context. Terry’s Chelsea colleagues were facing a surprise defeat against their newly promoted London rivals and had already had two players sent off. Then Terry was struck by Ferdinand’s elbow as they each jumped for the ball: not an uncommon event, and not uncommonly (at any level of football) leading to harsh words, soon forgotten.

The uncommon factors at Loftus Road that day were the presence of high definition TV cameras that zoomed in on Terry, and the all-pervasive influence of a race relations industry ready to pounce.

Terry’s alleged comments happened to coincide with the massively publicised week of action for the Kick Racism Out of Football campaign, which sees players and managers across the country obliged to wear “anti-racist” promotional badges, and a plethora of campaign events funded by the football industry and by central and local government.

Woe betide anyone in football who resists being drawn into this political circus.

The innocent ethnic hero of the hour is of course Anton Ferdinand. Long forgotten is his previous starring role in an earlier fracas. In November 2007 he was acquitted at London’s Snaresbrook Crown Court after being charged with assault and affray during a brawl outside Faces nightclub in Ilford during the early hours of 2nd October 2006.

This was the sort of activity one expects from typical New Londoners in the 21st century. The prosecution claimed that Ferdinand’s cousin had started a fight at the club, and that the footballer had later joined in. Ferdinand told the jury that he had been acting in self defence because he was afraid that his £64,000 watch was about to be stolen.

Despite the Crown Prosecution Service carefully selecting a barrister called Alex Agbamu to lead their case, so as to avoid allegations of “racism”, the jury believed Ferdinand’s defence and he walked free from court.

He ran out of luck three years later when he was convicted of using a mobile phone while driving and was banned from driving for six months.

Earlier this year Ferdinand was in the headlines again for non-footballing reasons when he blew £6,000 in five minutes at a roulette table in the 24-hour Aspers nightclub in Newcastle.

For as long as the public remains willing to continue handing over the cash, the likes of Ferdinand will be happy to spend it. And the media’s “anti-racist” circus will continue to hail them as heroes.

TIMES ONLINE, 24 Dec 2009: The Nazi gang that ordered the theft of the infamous ‘Arbeit Macht Frei’ sign from the gates of Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland planned to sell it to fund violent attacks against the Swedish Prime Minister and Parliament, it was claimed today.

A spokesman for the Swedish security police confirmed that the authorities were taking seriously a threat by a militant Nazi group to disrupt national elections next year.

“We are aware of the information about the alleged attack plans,” said Patrik Peter, the security police spokesman.